Thaos, I just want you to know that I'm not just venting at you. I'm getting a whole lot off of my chest in general, and then I'm shutting up.
er... okay. You can vent if you want. Like I said i'm just curious as to where/how this has come about. Please to understand. I'm Joe average. You know, wife, three kids, two cats. I have, and see, a lot of thought 'movements' (isms) coming to us with different notions of 'right' and 'wrong'. They don't get to just walk through the door without some sort of scrutiny. To me scrutiny is a sort of natural form of self preservation. So I ask questions. Especially when an -ism is trying to suggest the way I should live. You can unload bro. I have much respect for ya.
There are people who have committed the last 40 years of their life doing research on this subject. They publish in scientific journals which are read by interested people and then only a few soundbites are released to the public. People demand always to "see the evidence" and then complain when it cannot be easily explained to them. It's honestly insulting to me when people use the "I don't buy that shady 'just trust us, we are scientists' argument." How is someone who has earned a doctorate in a subject and spent dozens of years studying and understanding it, supposed to easily and readily explain it to someone who has no special knowledge. Given that it is as complicated as the entire planet on which we live.
Because as individuals or groups they have, maintain, and retain the right to discern for themselves what or what isn't in their best interest. Don't think that we, if I may be so bold as to speak for a discerning public, don't appreciate or want to believe in the work of science.
But please understand that - that desire or trust does not grant exclusive carte blanche acceptance of publically interpretated data. It was probablly science that warned of the dangers of "blind faith" (especially if we aren't given credit for understanding it's often cryptic world). Why then does it seem to revolt when it sees what may well be it's own reflection?
Do you trust the architect that designed the house you live in? Do you understand everything that goes into building a skyscraper? Would it make you unwilling to go into a skyscraper if the people who researched the structural integrity of the materials, and the proper designs, and so on might be part of a university research group (aka a shady special interest).
Do you question the weather when it comes on the news? Do you understand all the meteorology and hydrological concepts that go into predicting the weather? Why don't you question it if you don't understand the science behind it?
Science is everywhere. The word of scientists is trusted without question every time we ride in a car, ascend a skyscraper, spray bug killer, eat food, sleep on a bed made of sleep-aiding materials... and yet when they try to warn us of something we don't want to hear... suddenly science isn't trustworthy anymore...
The same scientific method is used... The same correlation tests are used... what is different?
I respectfully dissagree. In all of those examples you've sited you a would attest to a state of perfection being attained? No, I think not.
Pharmaceutical companies have created some medicines meant to aid and have actually caused more harm than good. The floor of a building has never collapsed due to bad design? There has never been a recall on an automobile? No one fully relies on the evening wheather, you included.
The world of science is not unquestionably trusted. It becomes of value once it's theories have been proven in practical real world conditions. Prior to that said claims reside as 'theories'. I can't use the blinding light of progressive materialism (fancy products) as a reason to grant carte blanche acceptance of everything that comes out of scientific academe.
And for the love of god, will someone please point out to me one single organization that has gotten rich off of funding to do research into global warming? Because I have heard that argument far too often: These guys are just making this up to get research funds to get rich.
"the total amounts (in real dollars) that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2007 amounts to $419.420 billion dollars -- an average of $8.559 billion per year. Measured in real terms (Meaning: if the value of $1.00 in 2007 equaled the value of $1.00 in 1958), the figure is $618.412 billion, or an average of $12.681 billion dollars per year over its' forty-nine year history." -
Wiki
We "trust" NASA. Representatives have to justify those allocations yearly to Congress. I'm sure they fight for every dime. But has everything that came out of NASA been a good thing? The blanket 'trust' science sometimes seems to demand can cost lives. Whether with a thing so grand of a scale as NASA or so small as a pill.
If you want to talk about economic incentives, look to the other side- the oil companies and their millions of dollars of lobbying capabilities are quite unhappy about the conclusions many environmental scientists have drawn. Oil companies get rich off of not changing their ways. Scientists would find another project if this one wasn't giving them their salary. There is always more in the world to study, and always someone willing to fund research into even the most obscure subjects.
And yes, large views of the universe are generally bleak. It's not scientists' job to make us feel warm and fuzzy. It is their job to understand the part of the world around us that they have chosen as their focus. Wherever that understanding may lead and however unhappy the conclusions may be. When science is warm and fuzzy, it's generally junk science.
A pratical objective reality will suffice just fine as opposed to warm an fuzzy. But what if those conclusions are incorrect? What if the Universe is and always has been, and always will be? With It's prior state something we are not privy to know?
Science has gone so far as to propose being on the cusp of discovering "A Theory of Everything"? What are we to do with such a theory? What is the problem science has with the free Will of individuals to discern? Do they consider the general public as "someone who has no special knowledge"? Are we then to be unquestionably led hither and yon by those who consider themselves as having same?
I simply, and respectfully, disagree.